When I analyze things I take the "black box" approach.
I don't look at what the Bin Laden family or the Bush family may or may
not have done. All I look at is what goes into the "black box" and what
comes out of the "black box".
It is know with certainty that 80% of the 911 attackers were Saudi's.
wrote: > > Precisely. The Saudis funded and executed the 9/11 attack but they were
Sadly I think you're right. It at least explains why after a thorough
inspection for WMDs we didn't find any (except the ones *we* had given to
Iraq) and why we then stayed so long afterward. What's that other piece of
advice from the PB that sadly applied to Iraq?
<<You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders - The most famous
of which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia">> Oops.
Perhaps Fidel's hard line against the US was related to the number of times
WE tried to kill HIM. If I were Obama I wouldn't be smoking any gift cigars
from Havana, if you get my drift.
The NK's were and still are far more of a WMD threat to our allies than
Saddam ever was. I suspect we were fed some seriously bad intel to lead us
into that debacle. Let's see - who would want us to fight a proxy war
against Iraq? (-: Probably the same country that's itching for us to fight
a proxy war against Iran for them . . .
I suspect Obama's Cuban surprise is the first of many foreign policy
realignments. Some politicos say that the Israelis might find themselves
surprised soon by the withdrawal of our automatic security council veto at
the UN regarding their settlement building.
Obama's still pissed off about Bibi's support of Romney as well as Israel's
building of even more settlements. Now that the mid-terms are over, I don't
think he feels very constrained anymore by the way things used to be. He's
looking to leave a legacy of the change he promised and he's looking for
payback, too. I think O's counting on the fact that like many young Cubans,
there's been a sea change among young American Jews and they no longer
blindly support anything Israel does. It's going to be an interesting two
years . . .
On Saturday, December 20, 2014 9:56:58 AM UTC-5, Robert Green wrote:
You rlib logic escapes me. It wasn't Bush that said there were WMDs there.
As I posted previously:
Based on CIA intelligence. British, Israeli intelligence believed he
had them too. And we know for sure he had them in the past, that he had
used them. Just days before the war began, with 300,000 coalition forces
on Iraq's border, Hans Blix, in his final report to the UN, said that
Iraq was still not fully cooperating with the UN weapons inspectors and
that they could not account for Iraqs WMDs.
It's nice being a Monday morning quarterback. Of course if it had turned
out Iraq had WMDs and later used them, you'd be here harping about what an
idiot Bush was. You'd be saying how everyone knew he still had WMDs. The
CIA knew it, British intel, Israeli intel. You'd cite the many speeches
by Bill, Hillary Clinton, Reid, Kerry, Edwards, saying Iraq had WMDs and
what a threat they were. You'd have been calling for Bush's impeachment
because he didn't act.
So, was Hillary, Kerry, Edwards, Brit intel, Israeli intel all in on
this plot by Bush to get Saddam because he tried to assassinate his father?
My, what you libs with BDR will believe.
What's that other piece of
Ahhhm, no, Fidel already had a hard line against the USA long before
there were any attempt to kill him. He had already declared himself a
commie and nationalized US assets. And those assassination attempts
were carried out by two of the
patron saints of you libs, JFK and Bobby K. In conjunction with the mob,
for good measure, of course.
If I were Obama I wouldn't be smoking any gift cigars
OH? A min ago, it was deliberate plot concocted by Bush, there was
no reason to believe there were WMDs. Now you admit that intelligence
believed Iraq still had WMDs.
Let's see - who would want us to fight a proxy war
I wouldn't be at all suprised with many realignments, as Obama, with nothing
left to lose, let's more of his true socialist, leftist positions be known.
Positions he kept hidden while running, of course.
Yes, I just hope Obama doesn't get us all killed before it's over.
He's a JV guy, way in over his head. As an example of another thing
he just screwed up, look at what went on with Sony. He's blaiming Sony
for not talking to him first. Sony CEO says they were in touch with the
WH, so what's up with that? The WH guys working for Obama didn't do
their job? Or Sony is lying? And good grief. The NK put out a 911
type threat, clearly involving national security and Sony, and Obama expects Sony has to call him? He can't pick up the phone? But he does have
time for endless trips all over the country every week for fund raisers.
Probably. I always try to point out to my Dem buddies that the CIA
head at the time was a holdover from the Clinton Administration and was
the guy whose Agency came up with the bombing the Aspirin factory in
Africa and the Chinese consultant in the Baltics. Not really sure why we
kept on by Clinton let alone by GW,
Yeah, now that he is the lamest of lame ducks. Sorta interesting
that all of these realignments come about a month after the last
election his name will ever be attached to (the mid-terms).
Yeah spending time in the Keys, I have noted the relative age of
the people on Miami TV upset about things Cuban (from this to sending a
bunch of people back because they washed up on the Old Seven Mile Bridge
instead of the new one) have quite a bit of grey when they have hair.
?Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.?
On 12/20/2014 09:14 PM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Yeah, I normally hate smoking and when my wife moved in here the rule of
the house is that she had to smoke outside.
Good thing about those -20F days here,
on one of those days I heard the door slam after she came back inside
Fuck this shit, I quit!
And she did.
That was a looong time ago.
Now , when we go grocery shopping we have to walk past the cigarettes on
the way out and we look at out grocery bill and say:
Wow, instead of all this food, we should have bought a carton of
wrote: > > Let's see - who would want us to fight a proxy war
I think we hit more than one "Chinese consultant." (Sorry, couldn't
resist - love me them humorous typos!)
He was kept on most likely because he had the same sort of "insurance
policy" the kept J. Edgar at the helm of the FBI for so long. Compromising
photos or something similar. Easy for me to believe about both GWB and Bill
I think the best quacking is yet to come. Remember, Obama has to be pissed
at all the Dem candidates that tried to distance themselves from him - and
lost anyway. Be very afraid of the man that has nothing to lose. I think
he's just getting started with Cuba. Soon we'll meet his best friend Veto.
And not Corleone.
(-: That telling observation is exactly why Bibi better be careful.
Without our Security Council veto things could shift dramatically for
Israel. Obama is counting on the changing demographics and that young
Jewish-Americans weren't yet alive when Israel was being born. Many of them
express feelings of shame about the one sided nature of "mowing the grass"
operations in Gaza. Israel itself is fracturing along the same
ultra-conservative/ultra-liberal lines as the US. Anti-Israeli rhetoric is
rising to pre-WWII levels throughout the EU and elsewhere. I think they
would have been better off keeping the land the captured but leaving it
unoccupied. The settlements will be their undoing, I fear because it didn't
solve the problem of keeping their rabid enemies far enough away that is
would be hard for them to do harm. Think of all the digging the Gazans
would have to do if there was a really buffer zone and how just a few bunker
buster bombs would have solved the problem of tunnels with very little
damage to Israeli citizens. Mowing the lawn would be changed to tilling the
soil. With TNT. (-:
I really do think O's on a "Payback" roll like that Mel Gibson movie (or the
one it was cribbed from, "Point Blank.") Hubba, hubba. The dice are
rolling, I can feel it. My worst fear is that as the Russian economy
collapses Putin will blame the US sanctions and kill off all his extra
mouths to feed by starting a war. I suspect the same will be true of China
when their economy finally implodes.
There's nothing like a good war to stimulate the economy, make people forget
their financial troubles and to kill off the excess population that will be
happy to find employment in the Army until they die.
I suspect we're woefully underestimating their military capabilities like we
did the Saudi terrorists and their ability to fly jets, the Iraqi's ability
to create deadly IEDs and evade "pacification", the Iranian and NK's ability
to engage in cyberwarfare (apparently the Iranians savaged Sheldon Adelson's
US gaming empire in response to his statements about nuking them), the
Pakistani's ability to create nuclear weapons, etc.
You'd think by now we would have learned not to undestimate our potential
and actual adversaries.
On Sunday, December 21, 2014 12:40:24 AM UTC-5, Robert Green wrote:
It's not his vetos that are of concern. It's his illegal acts, like the
illegal EO on illegal aliens that everyone should be concerned about.
BTW, how are those endless investigations the Obama administration is
doing in the pursuit of justice?
> > Obama's still pissed off about Bibi's support of Romney as well as
So is other irrational, behavior, eg terrorism. Has nothing to do with
it being right. It's hard to believe anti-semitism in France is on the rise
because they are concerned about the relationship between Israel and
I think they
So, even you think Obama may get us in a war in his last two years.
I fear that. Sounds like you want it.
I guess you'd have to ask Obama. He claims to know the JVs from the LA Lakers.
How's that working?
All that reputation was lost when it took ten years to accomplish close to
nothing in Afraq. It's been a long time since we nuked someone (70 years?).
We should at least nuke the NK bomb and missile factories with some neutron
bombs. Or maybe use the new big Bunker Buster bombs. The problem is that
if we do, China might cut off our supply of cheap HDTV's. (-: Busting up
NK's A-bomb facilities might make the Iranians come to Jesus. My Vietnam
buddy told me that when they took up a bunch of suspected VC in a Huey to
interrogate them, they all remained stonily silent until the first
"volunteer" left the cabin without a chute. After that you couldn't shut
ANY of them up. Or so he says. Reminds me of the line from "Full Metal
Jacket" where Joker asks the Huey gunner:
"How can you shoot women and children?!"
"Easy, you just don't lead as much"
FWIW, I always thought we did serious damage to our reputation as biggest
badass on the block by engaging in "one hand tied behind our back" wars like
Nam, Iraq and Afgoatistan. I give the Elder Bush a lot of credit for
punishing Iraq for all the world to see. Nothing says you're the biggest
badass on the block like the Iraqi "highway of death."
I read the other day that our big push to have "democratic" elections in
Afgoatistan resulted in a huge spike in hashish and opium exportation to pay
for the campaigns of the various candidates. There's nothing sadder than a
bunch of western politicians thinking that they can create viable Muslim
democracies. It just isn't in their DNA.
I was in the Army during the late 1969 - 1971 and heard the same story.
For whatever reason I was sent to Germany but most of my friends were
over in 'Nam.
I heard the story too and don't know if it was true or not but I friend
of mine was a tail gunner and he told me he just mowed down everyone he
was told to. In particular , he told me he did kill and old lady who was
begging for mercy simply because he was told to do so by the captain.
Though I did not vote for the elder Bush I just cannot come up with
anything he did wrong,,,other than have sons who are wimps
Probably because Big Brother China stood in the background as a protector.
We would not have gone after Iraq if the Soviet Union hadn't collapsed prior
to our invasion.
That's because for the longest time we were petroleum "junkies" and no
President was going to tell their "dealer" where to stuff it. We needed
that oil fix way too much. Now that OPEC has started its giant tailspin
we're not nearly as dependent on SA as we once were. A combination of good
ol' US technology *and* conservation/efficiency put an end to the
stranglehold they've had over us for decades. Couldn't come a moment too
soon to suit me. As a side benefit oil near $60 a barrel will likely put
the knife in Putin and his one-trick pony - the Russian's oil dependent
economy. I'm betting he's a little regretful spending so much money on the
Winter Olympics and the Crimean invasion. With the ruble headed into the
toilet, he knows he's very likely to follow. Couldn't happen to a "nicer"
Yes, the NK's make no secret of hating us, unlike the Saudis. The O-jays
understood it all years ago. "They smile in your face and all the time they
want to take your place, the backstabbers." If anyone owes us reparations,
it's SA for the destruction of the WTC. A check for $80B would be a good
Ain't that the truth. After over 50 years of isolation we failed to bring
democracy to them (or Communist China). Oddly we seem to have embraced the
"red Chinese" quite completely without demanding they up-end their political
system first just because we said they should. FWIW, anyone who thinks the
Chinese are now our Best Friends Forever is about as deluded as the people
who think SA is a great and trustworthy ally. The relationship with them is
in some ways just as sick. Instead of being addicted to SA's oil, we're
addicted to China's cheap consumer goods.
What really bugs me is that for all the time we've been piddling with Cuba
and the Pakistan tribal areas, real and powerful enemies have had our
computer infrastructure under heavy, relentless and very damaging attack.
Only now are we beginning to realize that the real battle for world
supremacy is taking place in the "electronic ether" and not in Waziristan.
The Sony hack should open at least *some* people's eyes about how exposed we
In other news: Now that all those schoolchildren have been killed by their
own countrymen, Pakistan might some to realize *they* have to clean up their
own backyard. They have turned a blind eye towards their own terrorist
groups because they hope to turn them against their most hated neighbor,
India. Maybe now they'll realize that wasn't such a good strategy.
Probably not. They are another very dubious ally - after all they were
harboring Bin Laden, the Saudi who masterminded 9/11! Sadly one narrative
that's evolving there is that those kids were murdered to avenge OUR drone
As you say, Cuba is so minor a player that it's almost comical to see how
many people have their panties knotted up and sucked up their a-holes over
The main difference is the one I alluded to earlier. There is no
"Little Beijing" in a politically sensitive Electoral College Swing
State. As to the consumer goods addiction, I am more sanguine. We are
saying the same things about China now as we said about Japan in the 60s
and 70s and Mexico in the 80s and 90s. It is much easier to find new
sources of cheap goods.
Good luck with that.
?Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.?
For what it's worth, people should realize that Kim Jung Un is walking
on thin ice.
North Korea just recently announced that Un's first foreign visit as the
leader of North Korea will be to Moscow for talks with Putin.
That's significant because historically China has always been North
Korea's closest ally. Un's visiting Russia first, before he visits
China, is a clear indication that relations between China and North
Korea aren't as friendly as we previously thought them to be, and that's
it's a clear indication that North Korea is looking to Russia instead of
China for protection from the west.
It seems that China's leadership feels that Un is too inexperienced to
manage his country and his beligerance in threatening South Korea and
Japan (and the USA) may be causing unnecessary tension between China and
those same countries as well. Basically, the Chinese leadership is
giving Un the cold shoulder so that he doesn't presume that the Chinese
will always be there to help him. The Chinese want Un to realize that
he can't take their protection for granted.
Un visiting Russia almost certainly won't be fruitful. North Korea has
always been in China's back yard, and Russia has never had any interest
in North Korea. Russia offering military support to North Korea is
going to rub Chinese fur the wrong way. And, Russia is already up to
it's ears in problems backing the Assad regime in Syria. They really
don't want to have North Korea hanging onto their coat tails too,
especially with the recent drop in oil prices wrecking their economy.
The problem is that Un was taught beligerance by his father and grand
father. He sincerely believes that the only way to maintain North
Korea's supposed position as a world "power" is to always be at the
brink of war with South Korea (and as a result of international
alliances) the USA as well. Without that beligerance and ever present
threat to peace, North Korea would simply be dismissed as another
example of the failure of communism to provide a decent life for it's
Almost certainly, if Un gets himself into a military confrontation with
South Korea, Japan or the USA, there's a real good chance that China
won't intervene because their leadership is thinking Un needs a lesson
in diplomacy, and he won't stop being a nuisance in the world until he
gets taught that lesson.
On Sunday, December 21, 2014 12:17:17 PM UTC-5, nestork wrote:
It's certainly interesting and I agree rather odd, given that their
relationship with China is critical, that they depend so much on China.
Let's hope the Chinese are fed up with him too.
Hopefully the USA has been putting maximum pressure on China to reign
him in. But give the general incompetence in the Obama administration,
I wouldn't count on it and even if they are trying, given the perception
of Obama as weak, not much reason for China to do it on our behalf. The
Chinese went out of their way to humiliate Obama while he was there, so
if they are doing anything with NK, it's likely for their own reasons.
Maybe so, but I wouldn't put it past Putin to do something with NK, just
to screw Obama some more. In fact, that's probably why they invited Un
over there to begin with.
That's probably true. For sure, any hopes that the little boy who went
to school in europe (at least we think he did), might be different,
might change things in NK for the better, are over.
That's probably true too. But the Chinese are acting more belicose
these days themselves. I wouldn't be surprised for trouble in Asia to
start with them, especially since they know Obama is weak.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.